Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2016, 08:09 PM
justaguy justaguy is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

To those it applies... brothers, watch your attitudes. John 13:35 does not include "doctrine" as a demonstration that you are Christ's disciple.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2016, 10:20 PM
good samaritan's Avatar
good samaritan good samaritan is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,710
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justaguy View Post
To those it applies... brothers, watch your attitudes. John 13:35 does not include "doctrine" as a demonstration that you are Christ's disciple.
Not sure what all you mean by this statement. It is true that having love for one another was a mark of a disciple (student). Having the love keeps on the right track in our Spiritual growth.

Doctrine was carried out by an apostle (messenger). A person can have the right message with the wrong Spirit, but we still need to hold the doctrine that was laid out by the apostles. Having love does not negate having correct doctrine.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-25-2016, 11:54 PM
justaguy justaguy is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan View Post
Not sure what all you mean by this statement. It is true that having love for one another was a mark of a disciple (student). Having the love keeps on the right track in our Spiritual growth.

Doctrine was carried out by an apostle (messenger). A person can have the right message with the wrong Spirit, but we still need to hold the doctrine that was laid out by the apostles. Having love does not negate having correct doctrine.
I just found this thread today and was responding to those who had posted assuming that they will get notification of a new comment on their old posts and it would give them something to consider in future... and others who might follow.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-26-2016, 07:40 AM
shazeep shazeep is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: chasin Grace
Posts: 9,594
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

oh, puhleeze; you debuted calling Mark a liar
Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan View Post
Having love does not negate having correct doctrine.
kinda surprised to hear you say this, GS, but then i'm about convinced i'm still asleep anyway lol. The Offended New Guy is backing Love, and the GS is backing doctrine? Anyway, i think that discussion will be about as productive as any oneness/trinny one ever is, but i'd consider that verse i've been throwing around lately...that i still haven't memorized...ah, yes, Rom 2:27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision, in light of Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law...

Now it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find equally definitive--or i guess i should say "convincing" to stay relative--exegesis for doctrine, but i have been looking, and boy they all seem to end in Love. Could you expound on the idea some? ty.

And could you maybe lighten up a little, ONG, i mean yikes, you're here repping Love, after all (dang nice job, btw). Ok maybe we need to find a less charged way to say "not rightly dividing the Word" now but that's as close to an admonition as i've ever heard the GS come, and we are after all on a forum, iron sharpening iron and all that, literally in the forge here, c'mon. If you're throwing sparks, don't be surprised when one lands on your arm. If any sparks can even come off of such a thread title, i mean, witness to me the first grape that has ever come of this particular debate! Ntmy

Last edited by shazeep; 09-26-2016 at 07:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2016, 01:19 PM
good samaritan's Avatar
good samaritan good samaritan is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,710
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shazeep View Post
oh, puhleeze; you debuted calling Mark a liar
kinda surprised to hear you say this, GS, but then i'm about convinced i'm still asleep anyway lol. The Offended New Guy is backing Love, and the GS is backing doctrine? Anyway, i think that discussion will be about as productive as any oneness/trinny one ever is, but i'd consider that verse i've been throwing around lately...that i still haven't memorized...ah, yes, Rom 2:27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision, in light of Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law...

Now it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find equally definitive--or i guess i should say "convincing" to stay relative--exegesis for doctrine, but i have been looking, and boy they all seem to end in Love. Could you expound on the idea some? ty.

And could you maybe lighten up a little, ONG, i mean yikes, you're here repping Love, after all (dang nice job, btw). Ok maybe we need to find a less charged way to say "not rightly dividing the Word" now but that's as close to an admonition as i've ever heard the GS come, and we are after all on a forum, iron sharpening iron and all that, literally in the forge here, c'mon. If you're throwing sparks, don't be surprised when one lands on your arm. If any sparks can even come off of such a thread title, i mean, witness to me the first grape that has ever come of this particular debate! Ntmy
I back love with the pursuit of correct doctrine. I didn't tell anyone they weren't personally rightly dividing the word of truth. I said something was clear to understand when we correctly divide the word of truth, or at least that was what I meant.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2016, 10:37 PM
Jito463 Jito463 is offline
J.esus i.s t.he o.ne God (463)


 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,806
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

Talk about your thread necros. 9 year old topic, with the last post being over 5 years ago.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
Sometimes hidden dangers spring on us suddenly. Those are out of our control. But when one can see the danger, and then refuses to arrest , all in the name of "God is in control", they are forfeiting God given, preventive opportunities.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-26-2016, 12:28 AM
justaguy justaguy is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

First off, a lot of my comments are referring to earlier posts. But we can discuss them if you wish and will stay with what the actual text declares, something most OP will not do.

Jesus, as the Son, IS the Creator regardless of whether we believe Oneness or Trinity... Paul in Colossians is excruciatingly plain about this.

Col 1:16-17 For by him (the Son vs 13-15) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Joh 1:3....All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus, the "Son of" God created the Heavens and the Earth, and ALL that exists in them.

It was Jesus who created Lucifer.

Reality altering concept for most, I know... but either it is true, or Joh 1:3 and Col 1:16 are in error. This means that the God of creation in Genesis 1:1 IS Jesus. This means that Jesus, the Son of God, was already in existence before Genesis 1:1, LONG before Mary was born, and LONG before His fleshly body came into existence.

Furthermore, four times in Revelation 1:8 & 11; 21:6; 22:13 Jesus declares "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" or "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end"... and three times in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6;..48:12..the Old Testament LORD of Hosts declared "I am the first, and I am the last." There cannot be TWO distinct separate persons who can BOTH claim this... thus it must be the same individual... or someone is lying.

THUS, Jesus of the New Testament IS therefore the LORD of Hosts of the Old testament, the God of Isaiah's visions, the One who declared "beside me there is no God" verse 44:6.

But that is not ALL the Bible has to say on the subject... and if you knew ALL of the text on the subject you would see that while Jesus IS the God of the Old and New Testaments, He is not the Father, and there is One to whom He is subordinate.

Col 1:15....Who is the "image" of the invisible God... as you have proven in the Greek, this declares that Jesus was a replica, a COPY of the original... but there is a huge difference between the original and a reproduction or copy... even if the copy is "perfect" it is still just a copy.

1Co 15:28....And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

1Cor 15 declares that when ALL of this is finished, The Son who is is HEAVEN will subordinate Himself to the Father and that the Father is GREATER than the Son, having subordinated all things to the Son to begin with... the Father is the DOER and the Son is the receiver of the actions of the Father. Col 1 agrees with this. Thus the Father and the Son are distinct individuals or Persons.

Rev 3 also declares this to be true but takes it to a whole new level.

Rev 3:12....Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Jesus Himself said that there is One whom He calls HIS "GOD"... and those who overcome will bear TWO names, the name of Jesus AND the name of His "God."


As for the thrones in Heaven, Jesus would disagree with you... there are two, not one.

Rev 3:21....To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Again, the Father and the Son are declared to be distinct persons, each possessing His own throne, and Jesus IN HEAVEN speaks of the Father as both a distinct individual, and as His Superior.

Furthermore:

Col 1:15....Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Rev 3:14....And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Col 1 declares that Jesus is the "first-born" of every "creature" including the Son with the "creatures", and in Rev 3:14 Jesus openly declares that He Himself is a created being, "the beginning of the creation of God." Plainly this says that when God began to create, the Son, Jesus was the first thing that was "created."

Thus what is actually declared in the Bible is that God "The Father" created Jesus "The Son", and Jesus "The Son" created everything else.

When You apply Jesus' own definition in John 17 to His statement in John 10, you see that Jesus NEVER considered that being "One" with the father meant that they were the same person.

Once you look at ALL of Jesus comments on the subject of Oneness at the same time, i.e. keeping them all in their actual context, instead of picking and choosing one here and another there, it becomes painfully obvious that Jesus was NEVER claiming to BE the Father, EVER... ESPECIALLY when He said that He and the Father are "one" in John 10.

If you continue reading the conversation in John 10 to its conclusion, when the Jews misunderstood Jesus to be claiming to be the Father, He actually corrected their misunderstanding by PLAINLY explaining that he was NOT claiming to be the Father, but rather the Son of the Father, and referenced...

Psa 82:6....I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

...as the grounds for His claim to be the "Son of God," incidentally a claim that every one of them and we today can also make within the same context.

For those who are concerned after reading my comments... Acts 2:38 ALL the way... but the Apostles never declared that to be saved one must repent, be baptized in the Name of Jesus, receive the Holy Ghost, AND BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE FATHER AND THE HOLY GHOST.

Jesus' response to Nicodemus did not include a reference to this concept, and Jesus NEVER said it anywhere else. The closest it comes is John 8:24 IF you leave out the translator's "he"... but then once again, if you continue reading you see Jesus say it again in vs 28, and it is clear from the greater context that he was not claiming to be the "I AM" in either verse, as OP teachings incorrectly claim.

It just isn't in the Bible, and simply isn't found in ANY of the APOSTLE'S teachings. It is the doctrine of man, and an addition to the Gospel which was delivered.

In fact, just the opposite it true.

According to Act 8:37-38....And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

It is Biblical to say that it is enough for one to believe that Jesus is merely the Son of God for them to be given FULL membership into the Body of Christ through baptism, and thus FULL fellowship in the church.

If they are 2:38, they are saved. I have presented chapter and verse for it. In that the Holy Ghost PERSONALLY SENT Philip to do this proves the validity of it... If Philip could not handle it correctly, I believe that the Holy ghost would not have sent him, therefore this bears the stamp of approval of the Holy Ghost Himself, that belief that Jesus is "the SON of God" is enough.

We need to stop fighting over nonessentials, and focus upon what IS required for salvation.

Oneness or Trinity is not the point. Preaching the Gospel and obeying the Great Commission IS the point... and Godhead is not a part of that message or Commission.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2016, 02:17 PM
good samaritan's Avatar
good samaritan good samaritan is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,710
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

[QUOTE=justaguy;1448255]
Quote:
First off, a lot of my comments are referring to earlier posts. But we can discuss them if you wish and will stay with what the actual text declares, something most OP will not do.

Jesus, as the Son, IS the Creator regardless of whether we believe Oneness or Trinity... Paul in Colossians is excruciatingly plain about this.

Col 1:16-17 For by him (the Son vs 13-15) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Joh 1:3....All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I don't disagree with any of this except the idea that it is in different persons. God the Father is a Spirit and the Spirit of The Father indwelt the Son Christ Jesus. They are not distinct persons. I too agree that Jesus exsisted prior to the incarnation, but it is difficult and confusing to explain how it works. I personally believe that Jesus was the fourth man in the fire with the three Hebrew boys in Daniel. If you think about once a person dies, I think you would agree that we all enter eternity.

This is somewhat deep, but eternity is not just meaning a never ending future. Eternity is outside of time. No beginning and no end. Jesus was manifest naturally in time, but in the resurrection he dwells outside of time. I other words Jesus no longer is living in a time zone, but he dwells in the eternal. Therefore he is very capable to be anywhere in our natural time he chooses to be even in creation.

I don't think this is important for any of us to think about only to know who Jesus is.


Quote:
Jesus, the "Son of" God created the Heavens and the Earth, and ALL that exists in them.

It was Jesus who created Lucifer.

Reality altering concept for most, I know... but either it is true, or Joh 1:3 and Col 1:16 are in error. This means that the God of creation in Genesis 1:1 IS Jesus. This means that Jesus, the Son of God, was already in existence before Genesis 1:1, LONG before Mary was born, and LONG before His fleshly body came into existence.

Furthermore, four times in Revelation 1:8 & 11; 21:6; 22:13 Jesus declares "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" or "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end"... and three times in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6;..48:12..the Old Testament LORD of Hosts declared "I am the first, and I am the last." There cannot be TWO distinct separate persons who can BOTH claim this... thus it must be the same individual... or someone is lying.

THUS, Jesus of the New Testament IS therefore the LORD of Hosts of the Old testament, the God of Isaiah's visions, the One who declared "beside me there is no God" verse 44:6.
I Thank what I just explained would not compromise any of the scriptures you have quoted, but still does not make separate persons in the Godhead.

Quote:
But that is not ALL the Bible has to say on the subject... and if you knew ALL of the text on the subject you would see that while Jesus IS the God of the Old and New Testaments, He is not the Father, and there is One to whom He is subordinate.
True that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, but it is still not as in a separate person. The Spirit of God indwelt Jesus Christ and therefore Christ was subordinate to what the invisible Spirit was doing. He was not subordinate as in simply taking commands, but instead he was one with God and the mind and will of God the Father was in Him.

Quote:
Col 1:15....Who is the "image" of the invisible God... as you have proven in the Greek, this declares that Jesus was a replica, a COPY of the original... but there is a huge difference between the original and a reproduction or copy... even if the copy is "perfect" it is still just a copy.
I never said that Jesus was a replica or a copy. My point was that he was visible image of God. Jesus isn't a copy of another person in the Godhead, but he is the visible image of the invisible God. His relation to God as Son is because of the physicality of his person. God is omnipresent, but Jesus the image of God had locality. Again, God is not a person, but a Spirit.

Quote:
1Co 15:28....And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
This is something else deep and hard to understand and I am not saying I got it right. This is what I believe though. We are going to die as well and enter eternity. Again, eternity is outside of time so we are as well going to enter a dimension (if it is o.k. to use that term) where there is no time. That being said we are eternal as well. We will have no beginning and no end. We are eternal ourselves and the role Jesus is to reconcile our eternal souls to the eternal God who Gave them. That God may be all in all.

Quote:
1Cor 15 declares that when ALL of this is finished, The Son who is is HEAVEN will subordinate Himself to the Father and that the Father is GREATER than the Son, having subordinated all things to the Son to begin with... the Father is the DOER and the Son is the receiver of the actions of the Father. Col 1 agrees with this. Thus the Father and the Son are distinct individuals or Persons
This part about distinct persons is where we disagree. The Bible never uses trinity terms as three persons in a God head. The Father/Son illustrations are relationships, but it doesn't make there 3 people up in heaven with different rankings. That is probably not how you view it, but that is IE what the doctrine of the Trinity comes to.

Quote:
Rev 3 also declares this to be true but takes it to a whole new level.

Rev 3:12....Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Jesus Himself said that there is One whom He calls HIS "GOD"... and those who overcome will bear TWO names, the name of Jesus AND the name of His "God."
According to Revelation 3:12 in the way you interpret there will be three names. name of God, name of the city new Jersalem, Christ's new name. I interpret this the same as Mathew 28:19. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, And of the Holy Ghost. The word "and" is taken from the Greek word kai which can be interpreted even, also, as well some other ways. The name written in Revelation 3:12 where not three different but was one name of God that that the image of Christ also bore.



Quote:
As for the thrones in Heaven, Jesus would disagree with you... there are two, not one.

Rev 3:21....To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
One Throne. It belongs to God, Jesus is seated upon it and we will as will. I don't expect to see a literal throne in the resurrection. I am sure you know that this is a vision. Thrones represent dominions.

Last edited by good samaritan; 09-26-2016 at 02:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2016, 12:32 AM
justaguy justaguy is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

Oh, and just because you claim I am not "rightly dividing the truth" does not make it so... That is not a valid rebuttal to the text or my logic... it is merely an arrogant personal slap... and is very carnal and revealing of your true spirit.

Go "pray through" and when you can correct me in meekness and with the Word, come back and we'll discuss things.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-26-2016, 01:48 PM
shazeep shazeep is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: chasin Grace
Posts: 9,594
Re: Oneness and Trinitarian Unity?

ya, i don't know if it would be better to just start dividing in situ or what, guess it depends upon the situation. I've learned to be careful with the word "confusion," too, and a couple other terms that are...well, just "charged," so to speak--taken differently than meant. I think no matter how innocuous you make that phrase, it is just going to be heard as "you didn't do it right." Of course, coming from someone who was just slinging around "liar," i mean, yikes. And, you have me in a position here, because i agree with him

i would have asked for your division on that, but i am still waiting for someone to witness the first bit of fruit from that line of discussion; i just don't see anything but...well, division!

Last edited by shazeep; 09-26-2016 at 01:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oneness Doctrine In The Aramaic New Testament Michael The Disciple Deep Waters 31 12-21-2021 03:34 AM
3 in 1 - I'M MORE ONENESS THAN YOU ARE ... SDG The D.A.'s Office 296 08-08-2009 11:18 PM
If Conservative Oneness Pentecostals Governed America... CC1 Fellowship Hall 132 04-12-2007 02:09 PM
Leading Trinitarian Performs Miracle Old Paths Fellowship Hall 17 03-31-2007 11:02 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.